Staff Comments in Response to the

Survey on Academic Reorganization

The numbers which precede each set of comments indicate the order in which the author ranked the five model options.

The five options appeared on the survey as follows:

Option Ranking

No Change Option _____

Model 1: Minor Repair Model _____

Model 2: College of Arts and Sciences Model _____

Model 3: Schools Model _____

Model 4: Single College Model _____

Three prompts were presented for people to respond to. The prompts appeared on the survey as follows:

2.1. Please discuss the aspects of your 1^st choice that led you to rank it highest among the five options.

2.2. Please discuss the aspects of your 5^th choice that led you to rank it last among the five options.

2.3. Please discuss any additional aspects of academic reorganization that you would like the committee to consider.

Written comments appear in their entirety, with surveys separated by a dashed line.

Comments from Faculty surveys have also been consolidated. They appear in a separate document.

Analyses of the ranking data appear in a separate report. Additionally, summaries of written comments related to each model will be made.

3 (although not really an option)

4 (although not really an option)

5 (although not really an option)

Dear Committee:

I have attended one of the three open fora that were held by the Restructuring Committee during the week of October 30, 2006. After listening to what the Committee had to say, there are many questions left unanswered and many concerns about the process engaged in thus far. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with feedback and know that you will listen.

First of all, there are four fundamental problems with the restructuring.

1. There is no solid evidence of what the problems are that restructuring is trying to fix, and there is no evidence at all about whether or not any of these proposed models will rectify (un)said problems.

2. Restructuring is disconnected from enrollment and, to a certain degree, the curriculum. Thus, how will restructuring solve those very important issues?

3. The details, budgets, and the implementation of these models are unknown; yet, they have a direct bearing on their feasibility and effectiveness.

4. No one stopped to think about who might be negatively affected by restructuring.

The Evidence: The evaluation team from the Higher Learning Commission passed along some advice in its report: "The team encourages the university to continue examining existing administrative structures in an effort to achieve greater productivity and facilitate collaboration throughout the campus." Your Committee also said that restructuring the University will better support our liberal arts mission. So, how do these models achieve greater productivity? How do they facilitate collaboration? How do they better support our mission? And, are these really the questions that we should be asking? I will venture to say that there is no way to know the answer to these questions because there is no evidence that 1) these are indeed the "problems" everyone is alluding to, or 2) the proposed models will address the problems. Take the mission, for example. The Schools Model and the College of Arts and Sciences Model both effectively quarantine the professional programs from the liberal arts programs. Does separating them truly promote the mission, and will the faculty in those disciplines feel willing to contribute to the Liberal Studies Program and the liberal arts? It’s doubtful. As for productivity and collaboration, there is nothing that says faculty and staff will be more productive in one of these models versus the other (or even versus the current structure). We’re part of the Show-Me State. Show us the evidence. We’re noted for our assessment program. Show us the assessment. The Committee said at Wednesday’s forum that you didn’t perform any data-gathering because you have a deadline of December and that time would be better spent on developing the models and philosophies behind them. I argue that this is a self-imposed deadline. Furthermore, it is a very bad idea to implement change for the sake of change.

The Disconnect: We’re barking up the wrong tree if we think restructuring will address enrollment and curricular issues. We all know that enrollment is falling below our goals. How will shifting structure and responsibilities address increasing enrollment? NSSE and CIRP data show that students cite Truman’s academic reputation, affordability, and class size as the major reasons for choosing us over another university. Administrative structure enters nowhere in their decision. As for students who are already here, some of them may become disenfranchised when they learn they have to go through even more hoops to get a substitution form signed, to be awarded a student research grant, or to do any number of other things. Models 2, 3, and especially 4 will make it difficult for students to figure out who to go to for permissions and advice. Having division offices with knowledgeable staff is key to a student’s satisfaction when pursuing these avenues. None of the models makes the administration any leaner. Regarding curriculum, splitting disciplines up into smaller and smaller groups is counterproductive to communication. Discipline chairs will have to muddle through a great number of other discipline chairs in order to get a picture of what else is going on at the University. It’s a fact that the more people there are on a committee, the less productive the meetings are. Either that, or there are a vociferous few who usually get their way. Thus, I ask you how having up to 33 (that’s how many disciplines with majors there are) discipline chairs will ameliorate communication. It seems the larger issue here is about power and control. How much control do faculty want over their curriculum, over their budget and travel, over their salaries? How much do they deserve? And, if they’re given control, would it really make things better in terms of satisfaction, communication, and sharing the curriculum? Those are questions that are very difficult to answer. Yet another hard-to-tackle issue is faculty reviews. Should faculty be in charge of their peers when it comes to promotion and tenure? Just because other institutions do it, does that mean Truman has to?

The Details: How will a restructuring work if you don’t know how you’re going to implement it? Can we even afford to do something as radical as models 3 and 4? Compensation of discipline chairs and the "über" deans, cost in physical space for so many discipline chairs, and many other as-yet-unknown issues are very relevant to restructuring. The Committee said at the fora and in their meeting minutes that "the details are not important." You chose to focus on the ideas and not the practicality of the models. That’s fine and good except for when it comes time to actually implement the changes. We may find ourselves in a quagmire of debt and hard feelings.., or we may not. The fact is we don’t know what will happen when we try to implement one of these models. Please take a long, hard look at the consequences of your actions.

The Truman Family: Finally, where is the human element in all of this? Not a single person ever mentioned people during the forum: no one from the audience and no one from the Committee. It was all talk about positions or about faculty. Well, like it or not, there are real people who will be affected by any restructuring. We’ve prided ourselves for years on what we called the Truman Family. We had beginning of the year picnics in Red Barn Park, we had ice cream socials, and we watched out for each other. It’s dismaying to spiral down into an every man for himself operation. That’s where this restructuring seems to be headed. It’s very, very sad to see the only mention of division secretaries in your document appear in the same sentence as photocopiers. It’s very, very sad to see models where our Deans no longer have positions. Our staff work long, hard days to make Truman run smoothly and to improve the student learning environment. I ask you, what kind of thanks is it for years — and even decades — of devotion to Truman to put Deans’ jobs on the chopping block or to leave secretaries out entirely? These people work to protect all of us, especially the students and the faculty. What kind of message does it send when you don’t say "thank you" to your Truman Family for all that they do? The division secretaries and academic affairs staff— our lowest-paid people— are people who come to Truman glad to be here and to be doing what they do every day. They really, truly have a commitment to Truman and to Kirksville. The Deans really, truly have these commitments as well. Please think long and hard about the consequences to these devoted people before you make a rash decision.

Further Observations: Only some of the models mention Interdisciplinary Studies. Where will it fall in the ones where it’s not mentioned? What about the LSP? Who will supervise that? Although we don’t officially have someone watching over it now full-time, an administrator would be nice. Finally, why will all the Deans’ positions become temporary 5-year slots? Isn’t that saying to them that you have little faith in their abilities to be effective managers? And, won’t a high, quick turnover affect the divisions negatively if someone new has to relearn the job every 5 years? I don’t think the Deans’ positions should be temporary.

In order for this letter to have been constructive, I feel I must offer up some solutions to the situations I’ve discussed. So, why not do one thing at a time, slowly, and find out what works and what doesn’t? If you want to increase interdisciplinarity, for example, try giving the Director of Interdisciplinary Studies a budget and a little authority. Go talk to the people who deal with administrative issues every day; perhaps they will surprise you with their insight. Make more and more concerted efforts to increase foundational gifts and student enrollment; perhaps then we wouldn’t have to worry so much about FTEs.

I apologize that this letter is heavily laden with questions, but I feel these questions and answers are essential to doing a good job. Considering academic structural models without doing the proper research is akin to throwing a dart and just hoping against hope that you hit the bull’s eye. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and think about my questions.

---------------------------

2.1 Please discuss the aspects of your "1" choice that led you to rank it highest among the five options.

The "solutions" offered by AHCAR are simply inappropriate because they address what is in my mind, at least, the wrong problem. I do not agree that we have some "problem" with our administrative structure. It is extremely flat, very efficient, and is very much related to the wonderful changes and improvements that have occurred on our campus over the last 20 years. The "problem" is not administrative structure. It has much more to do with some of the leaders in those jobs at present. Let me put some questions to you: Will interdisciplinarity increase or improve in any new administrative structure as long as Vice President Gordon is the VPAA? Are we likely to improve our tolerance for change as long as the present administrative team is in place? In regard to the large divisions, will simply adding as associate dean or two result in those sitting deans leading meaningful curriculum reform, writing more grants, and generally doing more LEADERSHIP kind of things? No, no, and no. The AHCAR and possibly the President has confused structure with people. Do we need an administrative structural change? I say no. Do we need some changes in the administrators working here? Yes, without doubt.

2.2 Please discuss the aspects of your 5th choice that led you to rank it last among the five options.

My 5th choice (the single college model) will require a great deal of effort and work to get off the ground. Given the facts that we (1) have initiated a major capital campaign, (2) are totally reworking our curriculum, (3) are totally redoing our tenure and promotion procedures, (4) will (probably) be hiring a new VPAA (if the rumor mill is even close to right), (5) will (probably) be hiring several new deans (again, if the rumor mill is right), and are facing a major problem in enrollment (I dread to think what will become of us if we do not address this and the state moves to something closer to a per head funding approach), we should simply not be doing this at all---at least right now. Try to be objective about this---what would you say if you heard an institution was changing their curriculum, their P&T processes, the chief academic officer, etc., but was first restructuring the administrative scheme? Doesn’t that sound a little ass- backwards? Or a lot? To use a business analogy---if a business was changing their processes, their "product", and their leadership (at least, the #2 person), does it make any sense to FIRST change the structure? You know it does not.

2.3 Please discuss any additional aspects of academic reorganization that you would like the committee to consider.

The notion (often expressed by one vocal member of the AHCAR) that moving to Model 4 (single college model) will somehow and someway reduce the "silos" we operate in is naive beyond belief. Department chair type people (call them what you will) are most concerned with their immediate colleagues, their own little program or operation, and their narrow little academic worlds. The notion that having 25 or 30 chairs or whatever the number will be will be "better" than having a small number of deans leading things is simply not true---at least, in my view. Here’s my advice to AHCAR. . .and to the President---forget administrative reorganization. Remind ALL sitting administrators that they serve on an annual basis and that changes will be made. Hire a new VPAA or Provost asap. Start the process now. VP Gordon is a good guy, but come on. . .he and the President are not even in the same book, nonetheless the same page. Make sure that the new person is on the same page as the President, has good leadership skills, and has the President’s respect and trust. Ideally, this person should be external. Examine the performance of each and every sitting administrator and make changes as deemed wise. We have some good leaders here---don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater and those who are "thrown out" should be afforded the maximum respect and consideration. President Dixon---you have not paid enough attention to this last matter so far and it has hurt you. But, you could change. Hire the new VPAA or Provost this spring. I mean right away. Spend the 07-08 year to get everyone else set. The new VPAA or Provost should lead this---not President Dixon. Make sure all new administrators know that they will be on fixed terms with the possibility of renewal.., or not. If the new VPAA or Provost believes that some large divisions should have asst. deans or whatever.., so be it. If the decision is made to departmentalize a large unit and have traditional chairs and so on... OK. Those decisions do not and should not be big deals and should not involve the entire campus community. It is just not necessary (or wise) to do that. Finally, communicate clearly that the structure is never firmly set or static. Changes will be made as deemed wise and in the best interests of the institution.

------------------

2.1 Logical. Understandable.

2.2 Improvements are needed and necessary.

------------------

2.1 I feel the current organization works well, but with our Division being large an Assoc. Dean would really benefit the Dean and Division.

2.2 This reorganization seems to be very confusing and would be totally different than the current organization.

---------------------

2.1 Program Director Compensation.

More contact (direct contact) between departments/program and administration.

HPP is operating successfully with this model now.

2.2 Corrects uneven Division Loads.

2.3 FTE as related to smaller disciplines and programs.

Develop a formula to calculate supervision into FTE.

--------------------------

2.1 The autonomy. I look forward to being independent and functioning accordingly.

2.2 Minor changes? Why bother!

2.3 I would like the committee to tell Dr. Dixon that if she chooses not to go with what the majority say then this was an exercise in time-wasting. I hope the people’s opinions are heard!

---------------------------

2.1 College of Arts & Sciences model is a very common one for schools that have a similar vision and make up of disciplines to Truman’s. This model seems to work well at other institutions and would form very logical groupings of disciplines here at Truman.

2.2 I don’t think Truman can handle an option like this at this point in its history, maybe a couple or a few decades from now. This would breed too much confusion at the University – too much change at one time.

2.3 Also need to consider administrative reorganization—that that should be another committee.

---------------------

2.1 From the description in the document Four Models for Restructuring Truman State University, the Schools Model will allow "discipline-level issues" to be handled at a departmental level. It also seemed to be a flexible plan with opportunities for some departments to negotiate their position within the schools

2.2 The Single College Model seems too fractured and reliant on the department chairs. While I would like to see more responsibility given to the departments, I believe this model goes too far and will not keep the University united behind its mission.

-------------------------

2.1 Model 3 puts control back in the hands of those "familiar" with their discipline. Each student should know what is expected of them once they select a school from the day they walk on campus as a freshman.

2.2 The No Change option should never be an option. Change will bring us to excellence. "No Change" and stay dormant.

--------------------------------------------

Choice # 1 — Model 1: Minor Repair Model

This model is my first choice because it will help alleviate the burden of the Deans in the largest divisions without creating additional problems across the University. As our current structure is definitely working as it stands and is a model to other institutions, I feel that making drastic changes will only cause chaos in many of our established policies and procedures, not to mention within the divisions themselves. The leadership provided by our Deans is outstanding!

I agree that we can make improvements to many policies and procedures by streamlining them campus-wide by establishing uniformity in the processes by which paperwork is moved through the system, (i.e. each division should follow the same template to approve and process an override for a student or a Change of Major/Advisor form). This would most benefit students in the speed in which things move along and also help their understanding of the process: alleviating confusion and mixed messages.

As the Deans and faculty always have the curriculum uppermost on their minds, I know that it is constantly evolving and improving and will continue to do s under Model 1.

Model 1 does, however; omit Interdisciplinary Studies and Study Abroad which need to be included as part of the University’s structure. These are two very important programs and are overlooked in several of the models presented.

Choice #5 — Model 4: Single College Model

The Single College Model is very unrealistic in thinking that it will improve Truman in any aspect! This model will completely destroy what we have worked decades toward:

cooperation and student learning. Bettering the curriculum cannot and will not come from this model. It will take away from what we have already attained without improving what we could be working to improve. We will waste time rearranging everything and everyone on campus without benefiting students, without improving the curriculum, and without furthering our mission. Our time can be put to more productive use by pinpointing the things we need to update and improve rather than creating a mish-mash across the University that makes no sense to anyone but the faculty whose egos are polished by the "promotion" to Department Chair!

Model 4 would also be the most costly of the four — most likely completely unrealistic in physically arranging offices, people, etc. It is totally unacceptable as an option for Truman. In fact, if adopted, we will no longer be what Truman State University has come to be known and appreciated for!

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 I, for the most part, really like how things are set up now and do not feel we need to make any drastic changes. I do think it would be beneficial to have Associate Deans in the really large divisions. For that reason, I chose this option over the no change choice. I felt the other options consist of too many drastic changes that do not really need to be made.

2.2 My basic understanding of why the university is exploring reorganization is to change the structure of the academic divisions on campus. To me, it appears that this plan changes a lot more structuring among academic areas outside of the divisions. Meaning the new structure with the Dean of Curriculum, Faculty, and students. The structure with the actual academic divisions doesn’t seem to change very much.

2.3 Overall, I feel that the negative impacts that any major restructuring among the divisions will have largely outweighs the possible benefits. I think our current structure is much simpler than some of the proposed plans and students like that. I think prospective students can be confused about how things work within a university that has separate "schools."

------------------------------------------------

2.1 Model 1 – Minor repair model – Since this model is currently being implemented to a degree in several departments/division, adopting this model would bring the needed changes with the last amount of upheaval. It is a model that the faculty understand and are capable of implementing. Where departments are not using this model may be where pockets of student, staff and faculty dissatisfaction are being fermented.

2.2 Single College Model – such a sweeping and global change would almost necessarily create problems and adjustments that could cover a student’s entire career at Truman. Are things really that broken? And how does this address the main problem: Student attraction and retention?

2.3 I repeat the last sentence of the comment above? Which model will help address the main problem: student attraction and retention? What realistic change can be considered if we don’t know the financial costs in light of declining revenues?

---------------------------------------------------

2.4 It is critical that financial implications be reviewed and considered before a model is chosen. Staff support needs to be thoroughly examined as well.

------------------------------------------------

2.4 It is critical that before a model is chosen and implementation begins, the financial implications of the selected model is thoroughly examined and considered.

--------------------------------------------------

2.1 I think it is less confusing and keeps each area smaller. It has good organization and structure. Each area is closely related to one another.

2.2 I think this was more confusing. I think the structure needs to be simple, plain, and easy for all to understand, students, faculty and staff.

2.3 I like the idea of each area being related to one another and falling into the same category.

----------------------------------------------

2.1 I don’t think we need to address the structure as a whole. I think we need to address where the problem really lies within our current structure. As an alumna I never really saw anything wrong with our current structure. As a secretary I don’t think changing the entire academic structure really addresses the current problems, but only creates different if not additional problems. There really aren’t enough details with all the models to make a really informed decision on them especially since it is just now that you are deciding to really include staff on this issue.

2.2 I hate to be immature, but here it goes anyway: this model sucks! It looks to me to be a recipe for disaster. Where’s the communication? Where are the details?

2.3 I think perhaps if staff could have been included sooner that would have been great. While I understand that coming up with detailed plans for each model would be difficult, it would definitely make this kind of survey easier to answer. Thanks for giving us a chance to give some input, I guess better late than never.

---------------------------------------

2.1 Allows for autonomy of departments. Each department can then focus on the important issues related to their area. Most departments have different priorities.

2.2 Brings in more higher-level administrators that we do NOT need. We should support the faculty and staff that we presently have who have stuck with Truman through these lean (2%) raise years. No more suits!

2.3 I do not see how we can look at this and not consider the financial impact. Everything assumed here revolves around the budget. No dramatic changes should be made. All secretaries deserve to keep their jobs!

--------------------------------------------

1 (if HES in Prof Prgms otherwise last choice!)

2.1 Seems philosophically appropriate and less lop-sided than College of Arts and Sciences Model.

2.2 Currently there are too many inequities between divisions and inefficiency administratively.

----------------------------------------------

I do not feel adequately informed to make a decision. Can you reorganize administration without reorganizing staff? Mention of staffing is unashamedly omitted. During the President’s interview during the presidential search process, she made a deliberate distinction between professional staff and clerical staff. She said that staff was contracted out at Geneseo. Is this her plan for Truman clerical staff such as she has begun with Physical Plant staff? What administrative qualities qualify college professors to supervise staff and make budgetary decisions? Much faculty discussion has centered on gaining control of the budget. You say that faculty should be compensated for the work they are doing. Are you kidding me? It would be more honest to say that faculty should be compensated for the education they have. Staff should be compensated for the work they are doing. But you want to compensate staff for the education they have. You’ve got it all backwards!

--------------------------------------------

2.1 I believe it is more financially responsible than any of the other options. I also believe it represents more creative thinking. We need to get ourselves thinking and working in new and different ways. This model will encourage us to do so.

2.2 It is not working. Our campus has a rich and wonderful history but we are not adapting to our changing environment. The needs of prospective and current students are not being served by the current system (look at our enrollment challenges). Our current system severely inhibits our ability to focus on students and student learning. It emphasizes "divisions" not the total learning environment.

2.3 There are a number of logistics that need to be worked out. You didn’t consult with Student Affairs before but I hope you will as you address further development of any of the models.

----------------------------------------------------

2.1 While I believe there needs to be minor changes to our current model (more balance on size, function), use of associate deans, I didn’t agree with all the required details of The Minor Repair Model, thus I selected the No Change Option.

2.2 I believe this flat structure would be hard to manage and operate. Each discipline reporting to the Provost or Asst would be a management headache. I also don’t like the idea of separating out a separate deans of students, faculty and curriculum. I believe these are related functions and shouldn’t be functionally separated.

2.3 I liked many aspects of the schools model, especially looking at reorganizing the disciplines in schools having a similar focus/functions/areas in common. Something similar could be done in the current model.

---------------------------------------------------

2.1 Has proven effective and efficient (Truman has been praised for decades for putting $$ where it matters—directly in teaching/learning and not in layers of bureaucracy (be them "vertical" or "horizontal" layers). Allows for consistency, excellent communication, preserves the "community" spirit on which Truman has built its excellence.

2.2 Increases bureaucracy. Numerous implementation problems that can turn the change into a disaster. Doesn’t solve anything (…but we don’t really know what we are trying to solve!!) Creates departmental isolation; generates political problems that Truman has encouraged to avoid. Serious problems of inconsistency.

2.3 The process has been shameful – where is the evidence for the need to embark in this energy – draining effort??!! Why are we doing this? Just for the sake of change? Just because we have to like "the rest of the world…" Maybe it’s time to be proud of who we are and recognize the value of what we do differently---perhaps that’s what has taken Truman to where it is now! How much is this going to cost? Why are we speculating on these models before we have info on the cost?

------------------------------------------------------

2.1 It makes the most sense with what goes on at our University.

2.2 I don’t think it has a clean and clear direction that this University is entitled to.

-------------------------------------------------------------

2.1 This model tweaks the present model just enough to provide greater accountability in a hierarchical manner. Associate Deans take administrative pressure off of Deans and standardized convener roles make that system more equitable across disciplines. I also think its about time that the HPP Dean was reinstated.

2.2 I’m not comfortable with the RCP being put under what is in essence Student Affairs. These are professional academic advisors who need to be part of Academic Affairs for ready access to curriculum information and the collegiality that comes from being in the same unit with faculty. If anything, the RCP should be under the Dean of University for Curriculum. Secondly, to me the "devolution of authority" model is a recipe for chaos.

------------------------------------------------------

2.1 Truman is an example of collegiality that few institutions can rival. The current structure has played a big role. It creates few distractions for our focus on learning. Has flexibility, excellent communication and teamwork. Where is the evidence that structuring different will work better??!!

2.2 Administrative costs will hurt our mission. Inconsistency will be rampant and we’ll have the problems, un-personality, feeling of remoteness that plague other institutions. WHERE IS THE GAIN? Will go against the blurring of disciplinary boundaries that we have pursued for interdisciplinarity – A DISASTER.

2.3 A capricious endeavor. No reason has even been given as to why we need restructuring. What is the problem we are trying to fix? What assessment information have we used? If the President so badly wants us to turn into the places she’s been, why did she chose to come to Truman? Does she understand how Truman became so strong? Does she understand what makes it work? The process has alienated many on campus – You cannot patch an evident disregard for staff.

----------------------------------------------

2.1 The Schools Model seems like a more even distribution of the programs under Deans/Directors. It’s a logical split between Arts & Sciences without trying to categorize Professional Programs. The Initiatives are not really address in the other models. The College of Arts & Sciences model is a close second in my ranking. But it puts just another layer of management over the Arts and Sciences Programs. Otherwise it is similar to the current model.

2.2 Certainly some change is called for or we wouldn’t be going through the process. This to some degree rules out the No Change and Minor Repair options. However the Single College model seems like such a drastic change that it almost looks chaotic. Department Chairs would seem to be reporting to a team rather than a person in the line of command.

2.3 As a staff member in a department not mentioned in this reorganization, I will be interested/concerned with how this affects the rest of the University.

--------------------------------------------

2.1 -cogently links areas of study

-provides administrative structure to reduce burden on faculty

-allows faculty to engage in what they do best

-creates an infrastructure for external relations

-provides point person/coordination mechanism for rest of the campus

2.2 -no mechanism for formal coordination

-faculty must sacrifice by taking on ___ administrative burden

-not cost effective use of personnel and expertise

-does not promote synergy

-too many Indians, no chief to coordinate efforts –

2.3 -desired outcomes in relationship to structures

-efficiency

-effectiveness

-agility

-promote mission

-enhance resource acquisition

-oversight

-coordination of curriculum

---------------------------------------------------

2.1 Why change anything

-------------------------------------------------

I think including the web address or date of the email would have been helpful. I predict you’ll have limited response because people are busy and it wasn’t easy to find the pdf file from "President’s Office."

2.1 I like that we are currently very lean administratively. While this forces the President and VPAA to make more decisions, it keeps Dean close to the students and the disciplines for which they have expertise. It is a good model that has made us a premier liberal arts and sciences university and has kept administrative costs lower than at other universities.

2.2 I don’t like the Single College Model because the three Deans seem too far removed from the students, and having one person, who may be unrelated to a certain discipline, be responsible for hiring or curriculum development will add an administrative level that would be a hindrance to excellence and efficiency.

2.3 Adding administrative layers would be an expensive, cumbersome mistake. Businesses nationwide strive to be lean administratively, as we are now. While there are challenges with this, it would not help to distance the Deans from the students or from the President.

-----------------------------------------------------

2.1 "…realigns structure to match the university mission…" = *

"disciplines remain in their current divisions" = less cost in relocating services.

2.2 Dividing academic divisions into "Schools" first creates confusion.

--------------------------------------------------------

2.1 The current organization works well for my position.

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 The current academic structure has carried the university through several changes; the university names change, mission changes and funding cuts. The university structure has handled these changes with very few problems. The current deans work well together and are able to accomplish tasks they are charged to resolve. They have handled funding cuts competently. The current structure allows for the smaller number of member to resolve the university issues. Changing to a structure that requires department chairs will mean a larger group to address issues and this always tends to mean less cooperation.

2.2 This choice has not given enough information that allows me to make an educated decision.

------------------------------------------------------

2.1 The need for interdisciplinary departments seem to have been well covered by the current model. The Deans work well together to provide the flexibility and creativity needed to keep Truman at the top among America’s college and universities. In addition, this model has kept Truman in good standing during sweeping changes in the past (i.e. going from a regional teaching college to a nationally recognized liberal arts institution.

2.2 Not enough information on this model to be able to make an informed decision.

-------------------------------------------------------

2.1 I am presently very, very happy with the way things are. The present number of deans coming to a consensus on issues would be better than so many needing to agree in the other models.

2.2 I can’t really tell what time will be like with the present information given. There are many ‘unknowns."

-------------------------------------------------------

2.1. The current model has weathered TSU through many changes and challenges in recent years. We are well thought of in higher education communities throughout the state and beyond. Let’s leave well enough alone.

2.2. This model is a radical departure from a mission that has served this University well. There is little known about this model and it has too many unknown variables.

2.1. I do believe there is room for change in our current structure. I feel that the larger divisions are stretched very thin and could use additional support that could be provided by an associate dean position. This is why I chose the "Minor Repair Model"

2.2. "The Single College Model" to me is too haphazard and chaotic. The idea of flattening the Administration does give faculty a closer connection to the "top", but I’m concerned about consistent communication. When something of value needs to be communicated to the faculty, I could see it becoming a game of "telephone" and in turn encouraging rumors and speculation and above all else, miscommunication.

2.1. Model 3 provides the levels of administration necessary to develop leadership at the disciplinary level as well as to develop ownership of their disciplines. It allows the dean the time to do the work of a dean- development and fundraising- something that is lacking in our current structure and expectations.

I particularly appreciate the incorporation of "term limits" into this plan. This ensures that leadership is continually developed and that leadership can be easily changed as the needs of a college or department change. It also allows us to avoid the pitfall we’re currently in with many deans who have served in their positions for years and who as a result have limited their divisions ability to change, implement new ideas, or respond to new needs.

I also appreciate that it redistributes power by assuming our divisions and disciplines to different groups.

2.2. I believe that Model 5 is too flat and that it will not increase administrative efficiency or communication. I have also heard that this model will move the Dean of Students under the VPAA, and I strongly believe that this is the wrong move for the University. I am amazed that the number of times that student needs are overlooked at this university or addressed only indirectly. The current Dean of Students is often their only advocate. If anything, this position should become a Vice President, not be put under one. I also believe that the hidden cost of inefficiency and conflict will outweigh any savings gained by losing dean positions.

2.3. We need change at this university, and I applaud efforts to do so.

For change to be effective, we must be careful about how department chairs are hired and, especially, how they are trained and mentored. Department chairs must be aware of and excited about administrative responsibility- not administrative power. They must also have a record of strong communication, innovation, and dependability. They need to be taught how to make hard decisions themselves; and not push those decisions on others.

We must also pick a plan that breaks up current division coalition that have kept our university from moving forward.

2.3. Why does this need to be done? What will fix/help/alleviate that is wrong now?

How will this facilitate a more productive learning environment for students?

2.1. When something is working it is usually a mistake to make drastic changes.

2.2. Too many chiefs.

2.3. How will any of these models affect the students ie who will be in the classrooms to teach? How many students will have to be in a class?

1/2 tied

2.1. The #1 and #2 choices seem to address more the needs to develop more of a focus on 1^st year students. These are the only two models that mention the RCP and FY Experience.

2.2. I think our current structure doesn’t provide enough emphasis on cross disciplinary work, or has any direct way to focus on the needs of our FY Students. We need to have a better way to retain these students. Our current structure (and my #4 choice) does not have any direct way to ensure a solid, consistent, positive experience is developed for our FY Students.

2.3. Developing a student success center and a center for FY Experience.

2.1. No Change Option- this model, our current model, has worked for the University throughout many years; it has been adaptable and flexible enough to see the University through many innovative changes. What other model can make that claim?! I further believe it is a waste of our precious resources (time, talent and dollars0 to devote to an insignificant concern when we have much bigger issues at hand such as a spiraling downward enrollment.

2.2. Well, let’s pull up the wagons around the camp fire in order to keep the Indians from penetrating the interior. That is what the Single College Model looks like on paper. In reality this model concentrates the balance of power at the very top of administration, not allowing the Indians (faculty) access to upper administration. Remember the old saying "Divide and Conquer". The Single College model divides (splinters) the leverage that faculty have now through their divisions to create chaos, strife and an atmosphere of self importance and self indulgence.

2.3. In the first place there has not been enough information provided to make any kind of educated decision. Without a budget analysis this entire process is moot.

2.1. I prefer the "No change option" because non of the other options appeal to me and I don’t see a need for change.

2.2. Model 4 puts Academic/administrative control in the hands of a couple people. Also, the idea of a department chair sounds nice, but it can take several years to become proficient and by that time they get replaced by someone else (based on the 3 yr rotation if they aren’t renewed). In addition, this model would cause a need to create a new organization account for every discipline, regardless of the size. Additionally, no evidence has been shown that this model would financially benefit the University.

2.3. Any model with changes should not be implemented hastily. No information has been provided regarding the financial or morale repercussions of models 1-4.

2.1. I feel higher education’s biggest problem is layers. Layers hinder communication, which I believe 90% of University’s problems. #2 allows for less layers, but still maintains an academic emphasis (deans). We just got out of the 20^th century by having deans; not division heads.

2.2. The single college model puts us back to pre-dean time. I know that there still could be deans (if accreditation). But it also has too many generals. Also I look at public perception and have always felt that our division heads/department chairs did not illustrate or project an "University" image.

2.1. - Subject areas are grouped based on similarities in how they view the world.

- Really like that the "professional" programs are together ( though I would have Business and Accountancy be its own offshoot, perhaps).

- Also like that it allows for support staff positions at varying levels and degrees of expertise.

2.2. University needs to make a change to better accomplish our mission in the 21^st century.

2.3. Please be cognizant of the needs for clerical and administrative support for the department chairs/associate deans/ deans. They need highly qualified assistants in addition to general clerical support.

2.1. See 2.2

2.2. I don’t see any of the options making significant progress toward the committee’s goals. The more autonomous disciplines become, the less the structure promotes interdisciplinary work.

2.3. The biggest current problem is the span of control. Division Deans in large divisions can’t effectively supervise and evaluate that many people.

2.1. In looking at the models the College of Arts and Sciences model will help Truman be more intentional in our efforts. This model also is less of an overall shift from our current model.

2.2. Basically this appears to be a reporting nightmare.

2.3. I do believe that this will be a positive change for the University.

2.1. I like the groupings of the academic disciplines best in this model but I think the directors of Initiatives should include McNair and other areas and it should function more like the inside section of the Single College Model.

2.2. I think we need to change some things just to improve operations whether or not we adopt one of these models.

2.3. Regardless of which model is selected, a designated contact person for each discipline would be a benefit.

2.1. Allows for an adequate administration to handle any concerns. Faculty and students would have guidance and direction closer to their discipline.

2.2. Too disconnected from "organization". This looks like a train wreck waiting to happen.

2.3. Ultimately this will be the President’s decision, and I will do what I can to make this transition as smooth as possible. Please realize that any change made to one area of campus DOES affect All of campus!

2.3. Where are all the little people located in these restructuring models?? (THE STAFF) How come they don’t discuss or show the number of staff that will be needed to keep things running smoothly? Will the staff get compensated if they have to take on more responsibilities?? This should be considered also.

2.1. The Single College Model sounds like it addresses some current concerns without becoming a complicated completely new structure. It had the benefits of flexibility and affordability. The different departments and faculty retain more authority over their programs. With a university the size of Truman it seems like this structure should work without another level of middle management. Three upper level Deans should be able to handle the administrative functions: hiring, curriculum oversight, etc.

2.2. The Schools model seems overly complex. Departments under each Dean are not equal so the work load would not be equal. Some departments may have to be changed to a different group once it is studied more or even split as mentioned in the possibilities. The use of different titles sounds confusing. And to contribute to the confusion jobs would rotate after serving a certain number of terms.

---------------------------------

2.1 The "minor repair" option would give current deans the support they need. Rather than starting over with a new structure, it is better to fix the problems in the old.

2.2 It doesn’t provide a coherent structure for decision making or resource allocation.

2.3 I resent being asked to express an option without more information. I suspect that we are being manipulated.

------------------------------------

2.1 It seems best for University as a whole with no disadvantage for one department specifically.

2.2 Seems least effective/efficient overall to because of TRIO (UB, McNair) program placement.

2.3 Because TRIO programs must compete in grant-writing, they need to be placed under VPAA. Other placements are seen as burying them in the institutional and lessening their chances for maximum points in proposal writing.

--------------------------------

2.1. Please discuss the aspects of your 1st choice that led you to rank it highest among the five options.

As was pointed out by several during the open forums, the current organizational structure has served this institution well through multiple decades of nationally-renowned innovation and change in higher education. I believe, as many do, that it is consistent with this university’s mission and values to always be looking for ways to make thoughtful change. That approach has led to Truman’s current highly regarded standing as a leader in the field. "No Change" in academic structure does not preclude continued progress on that front. It is not to be construed as a resistance to change or as an indicator of complacency.

I rank "No Change" at the top because it is not the time to give serious consideration to any disruption of structure. Our foundation as a high quality institution is crumbling before our eyes because too many BIG decisions are now being made without the forethought and planning that has been so characteristic of this University’s evolution. The potential ripple effects of one change may result in outcomes related to other initiatives that are not being fully considered. We need repair — but we need grass roots efforts to re-establish a "buy-in" campus-wide to the core values that underlie our mission, where people can really believe in and feel good about what we are doing as an institution. We need to reinforce the mortar by re-building cooperation and trust, valuing institutional history and recognizing through both words and actions that our greatest resource is people — and I don’t mean just monetary compensation. We must consistently treat each other with consideration and respect.

2.2. Please discuss the aspects of your 5th choice that led you to rank it last among the five options.

A significant point made in the open forums related to the concept of communication being more than talking to one another. Communication also, maybe more significantly, relates to the information that an individual is responsible for knowing, retaining and conveying to others. Especially in the current climate of this campus, it is highly unlikely that individuals across campus are going to take responsibility for information out of the goodness of their hearts. The loose structure of the Single College Model may on the surface sound good in theory — allowing people to work together without boundaries and barriers. Unfortunately, since people already feel devalued, I fear that human nature will take over and individuals will be even more focused on looking out solely for their own best interests. The line of responsibility and accountability for too many things will easily create less definition of authority, more confusion and even less customer service for our students. Everybody working with everybody sounds wonderful! Building a culture that values working together effectively has little to do, however, with who reports to whom and has everything to do with how people are treated when their thoughtful input is provided.

2.3. Please discuss any additional aspects of academic reorganization that you would like the committee to consider.

Clearly, we are faced with challenges on multiple levels at Truman in the current day and as we look toward the future of the institution. I would agree that there is evidence that communication in and among departments is not always as strong as it could be on this campus. That is not a symptom of a problematic organizational structure — it relates more to personal investment in the success of the University as a whole. At this point, morale of faculty and staff on this campus has reached an all time low. Because individuals and their potential contributions toward significant decisions regarding the future of the University are not valued, a sea of resentment and distrust has invaded our campus. It is an invaluable loss — greater than any monetary value could possibly convey. The loss is the heart and spirit of Truman State University — the belief in a collective greater good that has driven many people to fully invest themselves on an emotional, personal and professional level to their life’s work. Without that vital, passionate force cursing through our institutional veins, we are destined to fade — losing much of what has been truly distinctive about this place.

----------------------------------------------

2.1

I strongly favor the No Change Option. This university has seen remarkable change for more than two decades. It is change that has earned Truman State University national recognition for quality. Truman is also known nationwide for its ability to implement SUCCESSFUL change. It is through the current structure that we have transformed this university! We have strong evidence, and I believe proof, that the current structure works.

In recent years, the faculty and staff of Truman State University have been challenged to continue to implement change. It is a tradition on this campus that we will continue. However, the message seems to be that we must implement change for the sake of change, if only to be different than we have been in the past. The purpose and direction for proposed change is not to change to make ourselves better and to build on our past (while being consistent with the stated mission of the university) but to make a break from an identity that is celebrated and has taken decades to achieve.

There is no evidence that a change in our structure would promote the goals of Truman State University. I am told that we have a financial crisis on our hands yet we have no idea how expensive a structural change will be for Truman. I believe significant changes, like those proposed, is reckless without further planning (including plans for implementation) and evidence of it ability to enhance the success and mission of Truman State University.

As a wise administrator stated, "This is rearranging chairs on the Titanic."

2.2

I believe this is a highly autocratic model. To be successful, you must have great faith in the top administrator of the University. I believe we would most regret the implementation of this model.

-----------------------------------------------

2.1 The College of Arts and Sciences Model offers logical progress to align the current structure with the liberal arts mission. The deans and associate deans will provide stability and expertise in personnel and budgetary matters. The department chairs will not have the burden of heavy administrative duties on top of their teaching.

2.2 The Single College Model is much too flat. Although some might revile the "middle managers", I believe the Deans and Associate Deans serve a vital communicative function that will be lost with the Single College Model. Although it sounds good to assume that the faculty communicating directly with the Provost would prove fruitful, given past history with bodies such as Faculty Senate and Undergraduate Council, it would be next to impossible to arrive at a consensus on any policies, programs, or priorities. It would more likely be an individual faculty member’s agenda that was promoted rather than an agenda for the good of the University. The assumption that communication such as this would more immediately result in initiatives is an unlikely scenario.

2.3 Given our physical resource limitations, drastic change in the administrative structure would bring a host of logistical challenges that would ultimately affect the academic environment. Once a model has been chosen and is being refined, it is vital that the academic support staff be a part of the planning. We are the behind-the-scenes people who make sure faculty have the resources they need to teach and students have the resources they need to learn, yet I would venture to say that most faculty know very little about the processes that we facilitate on a daily basis. We are frequently overlooked but have a wealth of knowledge and fresh perspective on the administration of academic divisions that needs to be shared as the process gets further along.

----------------------------------

2.1. My first choice of the five options is the Single College Model. There are several reasons why it seems to make the most sense for Truman. First, we should share the concept that each academic department we have is of equal importance. Some are obviously larger than others but of equal value. We are not a huge university so the communication and feedback with this model should be easy and valuable (both ways). Although it is a personal decision or commitment, this model seems to be conducive to "buying in to" or the feeling of ownership of the institution. Hopefully, there would not be any sizeable increase in cost.

2.2. My fifth choice is the College of Arts and Sciences Model. We have the distinction of being the statewide liberal arts and sciences university. Regardless of what degree is granted from Truman, our students should have a good liberal arts and sciences foundation. This model would indicate that business, education, and health sciences are just out there somewhere as separate entities. There is an extra layer of three miscellaneous deans. If a Dean of Arts and Sciences is needed it seems like that position should have the same relationship with every academic division.

2.3. Obviously much time, thought, and work has already gone into this endeavor. You have an excellent committee and I commend you for that. The feedback that you receive from the faculty and other employees is very important. But there may not be a clear preference or especially strong case for one particular model. My advice then would be on the conservative side. Things are easier to get into than out of Money is tighter at home and it may need to be tighter at our "home away from home". Please don’t take this as a criticism of anything the University has done in the past, but I think we need to be careful with our spending when it comes to hiring consultants or creating positions.

Thank you to the twelve on the committee. You are all intelligent and you all work at Truman so I would be supportive of whatever academic reorganization recommendation you make. Good luck!!

---------------------------------------------

2.1. Please discuss the aspects of your 1st choice that led you to rank it highest among the five options.

The Minor Repair Model retains the vast array of advantages afforded by our current structure. It is not disruptive and should enable us to capitalize upon a structure that has served us well for many years. This model also enables us to address the demands placed upon the deans of the three largest divisions. This is particularly true in light of the changes to the convener responsibilities and the likely changes regarding faculty personnel reviews.

2.2. Please discuss the aspects of your 5th choice that led you to rank it last among the five options.

The Schools Model shifts a large amount of work to the department chairs. Under the right circumstances, this can work, but not at Truman. This shift presents two significant problems: 1) It necessitates regularly recruiting a large number of part-time faculty. 2) It presumes that leadership capacity among current faculty is equally distributed across the departments.

Regarding the first issue, we have not been able to effectively recruit part-time faculty on any scale. There is no indication that we would expect this to change and thus, we would be headed for a large-scale, chronic problem. As for the second issue, some areas have effective leaders who could take on these additional responsibilities without any problem. However, some conveners are ill-equipped to do this and may not even wish to take on the challenges represented. In those cases, programs/departments would be greatly disadvantaged.

This model also increases the potential for fragmentation. This is based on the increased expectations for department chairs and the proposed option that faculty could choose to split their disciplines. As to the first point, devolution of authority is certainly to be encouraged in an academic setting; we share similar professional training and advanced education that lends itself to the value of individual expression in a collegial setting. However, this may lead to the creation of small kingdoms that resist institutional initiatives and leadership. Truman has been marked by a strong sense of unity around our mission and collegiality. To place this much power at the department level means greater potential for insulation, while reducing institutional commitment and collegiality.

Regarding the second point, faculty groupings that further divide disciplines is unwarranted and contrary to the liberal arts and sciences mission. We seek to enhance interdisciplinarity, not to sub-divide based on pedagogy, epistemological, or content considerations. To do so merely reinforces the specialist perspective common to research institutions.

Finally, the model is flawed in the organizational placement of "Directors of Initiatives". These positions are widely disparate in terms of scope of responsibility, time commitments, and tasks. For example, responsibility for the Residential College Program is currently placed with a Dean/Associate VPAA. This is a full-time position with myriad responsibilities. In contrast, the JBA position is a summer responsibility that has some additional duties throughout the academic year. It has been filled effectively with a full-time faculty member for many years.

I am certain that the author of this organizational model did not intend to equate the various positions listed under this area on the organizational chart. Thus, this aspect of the structure would need much further refinement before implementation.

2.3. Please discuss any additional aspects of academic reorganization that you would like the committee to consider.

Overall, coming to clarity and agreement regarding basic responsibilities of conveners/chairs is wise and warranted. These folks serve their colleagues without fanfare and often without compensation. They are also hampered by a lack of authority to accomplish their tasks and must rely completely upon collegial persuasion. This should be addressed in a manner that is appropriate, cost-effective, and practical.

Likewise, increasing the role of disciplines in the faculty review process is essential. Colleagues should be engaged in examining and supporting one another’s work, particularly the teaching/learning enterprise. Regardless of the model adopted, reorganization must support this change.

Finally, organizing the academic units to fully support the institutional mission is critical. Creating an environment which supports collaboration and coordination of the learning experience across many dimensions is foundational to that end. It can be accomplished with our current model, but perhaps can be better accomplished with some changes. We must keep this central in all of our discussions of reorganization.

If we can accomplish these worthy goals, the particular restructuring model adopted is less significant. I am confident that the collective institutional wisdom will enable us to move ahead in this strategic decision. This is a great organization, due in no small part to visionary leadership, a mission-driven culture, and the highest quality faculty, staff,

and students to be found anywhere. While there may be some trepidation regarding the inevitable changes, I anticipate that we will respond admirably to the challenge. Our history provides clear evidence of our capacity for change and I believe the future will tell the same story.

----------------------------------------------

2.1 This administrative system has been working for a long time. All of the problems that have been stated can be addressed within this system. The time and resources that would go into the administration changes could be put into addressing the recruitment, retention and budget problems.

2.2 This model does not have enough detail to evaluate it in comparison to the other models.

2.3 If reorganization is to happen, do not stop with academic areas. Put the entire University organization on the table and find the best fit for all departments.

---------------------------------------------

2.1 "No Change" is my first choice because I believe that we can accomplish all of our goals for restructuring within the current system.

2.2 The "Single College Model" is my last choice because it is a radical departure from our current structure, and we have not seen any assessment data that indicates that this model (or any of the other proposed models) would be an improvement over the current system.

-------------------------------------------

2.1 No Change Option

I see no reason to try to fix something that isn’t broken just for the sake of a change. Given the financial situation of the institution, the limited amount of funding could be used to enhance the existing system.

2.2 The Single College Model would be a disaster for the campus community as we know it. This model would cause dissention among the faculty because everyone is not a leader, or a manager, and decisions do have to be made. Having a strong leader to take charge and implement is critical to any large organization.

2.3 The Vice President for Academic Affairs should have a greater voice and more power in the existing structure. He should be second in command, and not just a figure head. The Deans should remain in power in the divisions. On another note, does the staff figure into anything on this campus?

Download as a Word Document

Staff Comments in Response to the

Survey on Academic Reorganization